Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of the Mobile Phase Compositions on the Confirmation Analysis of Some Prohibited Substances in Sport by LC–ESI–MS/MS

  • Original
  • Published:
Chromatographia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, the influence of the different mobile phase compositions on the sensitivity and chromatographic performance of prohibited small peptides (< 2 kDa), their metabolites, and non-peptide substances (anamorelin, ibutamoren) were demonstrated using LC–electrospray ionization coupled with triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (LC–ESI–MS/MS). In the mobile phase, widely used mobile phase additives, ammonium formate (AF), formic acid (FA), and dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) were employed with different organic phase modifiers such as acetonitrile (ACN) and methanol (MeOH). To evaluate the limit of detection (LOD) and matrix effect of analytes, urine samples were prepared by solid-phase extraction (SPE), and then, their analysis was performed by LC–ESI–MS/MS. LOD values of analytes were found to be between 0.05–2 ng mL−1 except for ibutamoren, anamorelin, and leuprolide (5–9), which had LOD values of lower than 0.05 ng mL−1. The best results related to sensitivity and chromatographic performance for the analysis of the analytes were achieved using ACN-based mobile phase containing 0.1% FA, which led to less ion suppression for most analytes compared to other employed mobile phase compositions. The proposed method to use for confirmation analysis of analytes was validated with respect to selectivity, carryover, precision, the limit of identification (LOI), recovery, matrix effect, and robustness. The applicability of the method in real urine samples was demonstrated by analyzing two different excretion urine samples containing leuprolide and triptorelin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. WADA 2019 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods (2019). https://www.wada-ama.org/en/media/news/2018-09/wada-publishes-2019-list-of-prohibited-substances-and-methods. Accessed 28 Sept 2018

  2. Den Broek IV, Blokland M, Nessen MA, Sterk S (2015) Current trends in mass spectrometry of peptides and proteins: application to veterinary and sports-doping control. Mass Spectrom Rev 34:571–594

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cox HD, Smeal SJ, Hughes CM, Cox JE, Eichner D (2015) Detection and in vitro metabolism of AOD9604. Drug Test Anal 7:31–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thomas A, Delahaut P, Krug O, Schanzer W, Thevis M (2012) Metabolism of growth hormone releasing peptides. Anal Chem 84:10252–10259

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. WADA Minimum required performance levels for detection and identification of non-threshold substances (2019) https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/science-medicine/td2019mrpl. 15 May 2019.

  6. Hansen BS, Raun K, Nielsen KK, Johansen PB, Hansen TK, Peschke B, Lau H, Andersen P, Ankersen M (1999) Pharmacological characterisation of a new oral GH secretagogue, NN703. Eur J Endocrinol 141:180–189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sigalos JT, Pastuszak AW (2018) The safety and efficacy of growth hormone secretagogues. Sex Med Rev 6:45–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Semenistaya E, Zvereva I, Krotov G, Rodchenkov G (2016) Solid-phase extraction of small biologically active peptides on cartridges and microelution 96-well plates from human urine. Drug Test Anal 8(9):940–949

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Semenistaya E, Zvereva I, Thomas A, Thevis M, Krotov G, Rodchenkov G (2015) Determination of growth hormone releasing peptides metabolites in human urine after nasal administration of GHRP-1, GHRP-2, GHRP-6, Hexarelin, and Ipamorelin. Drug Test Anal 7:919–925

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Esposito S, Deventer K, T’Sjoen G, Vantilborgh A, Eenoo PV (2013) Doping control analysis of desmopressin in human urine by LC-ESI-MS/MS after urine delipidation. Biomed Chromatogr 27:240–245

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Esposito S, Deventer K, T’Sjoen G, Vantilborgh A, Delbeke FT, Goessaert AS, Everaert K, Eenoo PV (2012) Qualitative detection of desmopressin in plasma by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 402:2789–2796

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomas A, Solymos E, Schänzer W, Baume N, Saugy M, Dellanna F, Thevis M (2011) Determination of vasopressin and desmopressin in urine by means of liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry for doping control purposes. Anal Chim Acta 707:107–113

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas A, Gorgens C, Guddat S, Thieme D, Dellanna F, Schanzer W, Thevis M (2016) Simplifying and expanding the screening for peptides <2 kDa by direct urine injection, liquid chromatography, and ion mobility mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci 39:333–341

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Judák P, Grainger J, Goebel C, Eenoo PV, Deventer K (1657Y) DMSO Assisted electrospray ionization for the detection of small peptide hormones in urine by dilute-and-shoot-liquid-chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 28:1657Y1665

    Google Scholar 

  15. Okano M, Sato M, Ikekita A, Kageyama S (2010) Determination of growth hormone secretagogue pralmorelin (GHRP-2) and its metabolite in human urine by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 24:2046–2056

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cox HD, Hughes CM, Eichner D (2015) Detection of GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 in urine samples from athletes. Drug Test Anal 7:439–444

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomas A, Höppner S, Geyer H, Schänzer W, Petrou M, Kwiatkowska D, Andrzej P, Thevis M (2011) Determination of growth hormone releasing peptides (GHRP) and their major metabolites in human urine for doping controls by means of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 401:507–516

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Min H, Han B, Sung C, Park JH, Lee KM, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Son J, Kwon OS, Lee J (2016) LC-MS/MS Method for simultaneous analysis of growth hormone- releasing peptides and secretagogues in human urine. Mass Spectrom Lett 7(3):55–63

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Mazzarino M, Calvaresi V, Torre X, Parrotta G, Sebastianelli C, Botre F (2015) Development and validation of a liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry procedure after solid-phase extraction for detection of 19 doping peptides in human urine. Forensic Toxicol 33:321–337

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Thomas A, Walpurgis K, Krug O, Schänzer W, Thevis M (2012) Determination of prohibited, small peptides in urine for sports drug testing by means of nano-liquid chromatography/benchtop quadrupole orbitrap tandem-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1259:251–257

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuervo D, Cynthia L, Fernández-Álvarez M, Muñoz G, Carreras D (2017) Determination of doping peptides via solid-phase microelution and accurate-mass quadrupole time-of-flight LC–MS. J Chromatogr B 1065–1066:134–144

    Google Scholar 

  22. Botrè F, Torre X, Mazzarino M (2016) Multianalyte LC–MS-based methods in doping control:what are the implications for doping athletes? Bioanal 8(11):1129–1132

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bruns K, Monnikes R, Lackner KJ (2016) Quantitative determination of four immunosuppressants by high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS). Clin Chem Lab Med 54(7):1193–1200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jin Yang X, Qu Y, Yuan Q, Wan P, Du Z, Chen D, Wong C (2013) Effect of ammonium on liquid- and gas-phase protonation and deprotonation in electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Analyst 138:659–665

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kostiainen R, Kauppila TJ (2009) Effect of eluent on the ionization process in liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1216:685–699

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Strzelecka D, Holman SW, Eyers CE (2015) Evaluation of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) as a mobile phase additive during top 3 label-free quantitative proteomics. Int J Mass Spectrom 391:157–160

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Borges V, Henion J (2005) Determination of pharmaceutical compounds in aqueous dimethyl sulfoxide by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 19:415–423

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hahne H, Pachi F, Ruprecht B, Maier SK, Klaeger S, Helm D, Médard G, Wilm M, Lemeer S, Kuster B (2013) DMSO Enhances electrospray response, boosting sensitivity of proteomic experiments. Nat Methods 10:989–991

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yu P, Hahne H, Wilhelm M, Kuster B (2017) Ethylene glycol improves electrospray ionization efficiency in bottom-up proteomics. Anal Bioanal Chem 409:1049–1057

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Doellinger J, Grossegesse M, Nitsche A, Lasch P (2018) DMSO as a mobile phase additive enhances detection of ubiquitination sites by nano-LC-ESI-MS/MS. J Mass Spectrom 53:183–187

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chan DS, Matak-Vinković D, Coyne AG, Abell C (2016) Insight into protein conformation and subcharging by DMSO from native ion mobility mass spectrometry. Chem Select 1:5686–5690

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Nshanian M, Lakshmanan R, Chen H, Loo RRO, Loo JA (2018) Enhancing sensitivity of liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry of peptides and proteins using supercharging agents. Int J Mass Spectrom 427:157–164

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. WADA Technical Document (2015) Minimum Criteria For Chromatographic-Mass Spectrometrıc Confirmation of the Identity of Analytes For Doping Control Purposes. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/td2015idcr_-_eng.pdf

  34. International standard for Laboratories (ISL) (2019) Validation of Confirmation Procedures for Non-Threshold Substances.https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/isl_nov2019.pdf

  35. Kwok WH, Ho EN, Lau MY, Leung GN, Wong AS, Wan TS (2013) Doping control analysis of seven bioactive peptides in horse plasma by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:2595–2606

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schug K, McNair HM (2002) Adduct formation in electrospray ıonization. Part 1: common acidic pharmaceuticals. J Sep Sci 25:760–766

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kamel AM, Brown PR, Munson B (1999) Effects of mobile-phase additives, solution ph, ionization constant, and analyte concentration on the sensitivities and electrospray ıonization mass spectra of nucleoside antiviral agents. Anal Chem 71:5481–5492

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Creydt M, Fischer M (2017) Plant Metabolomics: maximizing metabolome coverage by optimizing mobile phase additives for nontargeted mass spectrometry in positive and negative electrospray ıonization mode. Anal Chem 89:10474–10486

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Johnson D, Boyes B, Orlando R (2013) The use of ammonium formate as a mobile-phase modifier for lc-ms/ms analysis of tryptic digests. J Biomol Tech 24:4

    Google Scholar 

  40. Giorgianni F, Cappiello A, Beranova-Giorgianni S, Palma P, Trufelli H, Desiderio DM (2004) LC-MS/MS analysis of peptides with methanol as organic modifier: improved limits of detection. Anal Chem 76:7028–7038

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Guleria R, Pasha S, Makharia G, Sabareesh V (2015) Understanding the response of the molecule to electrospray ionization (ESI) by selected reaction monitoring (SRM) tandem mass spectrometry: defining molecular ESI index (MESII). Mass Spectrom Purif Tech 1(1):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  42. Guan F, You Y, Li X, Robinson MA (2018) Detection and confirmation of cobratoxin in equine plasma by solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1533:38–48

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Judák P, Van Eenoo P, Deventer K (2018) Urinary matrix effects in electrospray ionization mass spectrometry in the presence of DMSO. J Mass Spectrom 53:1018–1021

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Zvereva I, Dudko G, Dikunets M (2018) Determination of GnRH and its synthetic analogues' abuse in doping control: Small bioactive peptide UPLC–MS/MS method extension by addition of in vitro and in vivo metabolism data; evaluation of LH and steroid profile parameter fluctuations as suitable biomarkers. Drug Test Anal 10:711–722

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Handelsman DJ, Idana A, Graingerb J, Goebelb C, Turnera L, Conwaya AJ (2014) Detection and effects on serum and urine steroid and LH of repeatedGnRH analog (leuprolide) stimulation. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 141:113–120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Müller FO, Schall TR, Zyl Smit R, Tucker T, Marais K, Groenewould G, Porchet HC, Weiner M, Hawarden D (1997) Pharmacokinetics of triptorelin after intravenous bolus administration in healthy males and in males with renal or hepatic insufficiency. Br J Clin Pharmacol 44:335–341

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank WADA for the permission of usage of excretion urine samples provided to our lab.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey

    Ebru Uçaktürk

  2. Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacognosy, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, Turkey

    Arif Ahmet Başaran

  3. Faculty of Sport Science, Exercise and Sport Physiology, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, Turkey

    Ali Haydar Demirel

  4. Turkish Doping Control Center, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey

    Ebru Uçaktürk, Arif Ahmet Başaran & Ali Haydar Demirel

Authors
  1. Ebru Uçaktürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arif Ahmet Başaran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Haydar Demirel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebru Uçaktürk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have declared no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uçaktürk, E., Başaran, A.A. & Demirel, A.H. Effect of the Mobile Phase Compositions on the Confirmation Analysis of Some Prohibited Substances in Sport by LC–ESI–MS/MS. Chromatographia 83, 1397–1411 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-020-03957-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10337-020-03957-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation